Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: gzd Date: Oct 23, 2010 12:15pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: The next 30 Items in question

Actually, there's no renewal record per se for Postmark for Danger (1955). The only records that pop up are mass-lists of copyright assignments (document numbers that start with V instead of RE), and PD titles can and do pop up in such lists (try a search for "They made me a criminal" and "woman in green" for example)

Furthermore, there's even a registration by Alpha Video for a modified print with additional sound effects:
Type of Work: Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date: PA0001626240 / 2008-10-23
Application Title: Postmark For Danger.
Title: Postmark For Danger.
Description: Videodisc (DVD)
Copyright Claimant: Gotham Distributing Corp. d/b/a Alpha Video Distributors. Address: PO Box 101, Narberth, PA 19072.
Date of Creation: 2008
Date of Publication: 2008-09-30
Nation of First Publication: United States
Authorship on Application: Gotham Distributing Corp. d/b/a Alpha Video Distributors, employer for hire.
Pre-existing Material: Motion Picture Preexisting; Postmark For Danger - Directed By Guy Green.
Basis of Claim: New Matter: Ambient and Newly Created Sound Effects.
Copyright Note: C.O. correspondence.
Names: Alpha Video Distributors
Gotham Distributing Corp.

It's a UK movie to start with, although the executive producer, Tony Owen, was an American. The Alpha registration makes me suspect it's PD in the US, but I am not well-versed in GATT and UK copyright subtleties, so I'll let others draw the proper conclusions.

This post was modified by gzd on 2010-10-23 19:15:48

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: HektorT Date: Oct 26, 2010 2:22pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: The next 30 Items in question

Actually to NOT be eligible GATT, none of the copyright holders can be non-American. So even if one were british it would be GATT eligible. In any event the Copyright holders differ from country to country. In most cases it is Director, Screenwriter, music composer. I've never seen the Producer as a copyright holder. In this case the director is British, so it would be GATT eligible as long as it wasn't in the UK Public Domain in 1996

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billbarstad Date: Oct 23, 2010 1:47pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: The next 30 Items in question

If executive producer Tony Owen was a copyright holder, and that seems likely, the movie wouldn't be GATT eligible. Since the original copyright term is 50 years, the movie would now be PD.